[Wheel-builders] Wheel files for PPC64le

[Leonardo Bianconi]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nick Coghlan [mailto:ncoghlan at gmail.com]
> Sent: quarta-feira, 5 de abril de 2017 02:27
> To: Leonardo Bianconi <leonardo.bianconi at eldorado.org.br>
> Cc: Nathaniel Smith <njs at pobox.com>; wheel-builders at python.org
> Subject: Re: [Wheel-builders] Wheel files for PPC64le
> 
> (Sorry for the late follow-up - this list used to be filed under a
> mail subfolder that I didn't check very often, and I've only just now
> moved it to one that I look at more regularly)
> 
> On 3 March 2017 at 04:05, Leonardo Bianconi
> <leonardo.bianconi at eldorado.org.br> wrote:
> > From: Nick Coghlan [mailto:ncoghlan at gmail.com]
> >> Given that the baseline images are Ubuntu 14.04 and CentOS 7, how about
> calling
> >> it linux2014?
> >
> > Actually I suggested the CentOS 7 as base just to make both architectures
> depending
> > of the same system, leaving the ubuntu 14.04 and 15.04 without support, as
> them are
> > older than CentOS 7, and the backward compatibility may not work.
> >
> > So, as CentOS 7 is from 2016, the suggestions would be linux2016, right?
> 
> The CentOS 7 ABI baseline isn't from 2016 - it's from 2014, since the
> package versions are fixed by the corresponding RHEL release:
> https://access.redhat.com/support/policy/updates/errata#Life_Cycle_Dates

Yes you are right, I've just checked the versions and tested it with numpy, and
worked, so we are able to have the CentOS 7 as base, keeping the Ubuntu 14.04
and later as supported OSs.

Regarding the PEP, are we going to have only one new PEP for all architectures
(tags manylinux2 and manylinux3 - discussion in the other thread)? Should this
one be discarded?

> 
> Technically, the ABI compatibility baseline dates are even earlier
> than that, since they're already set at least by the public RHEL X
> beta, which is several months before the final release (Dec 2013 in
> the case of the RHEL 7 beta)
> 
> While the decision to use `manylinux3` makes the `linux2014` vs
> `linux2016` discussion moot, that distinction is still important in
> terms of whether or not Ubuntu 14.04 is likely meet the manylinux3 ABI
> detection checks (I actually expect it will, although only testing
> will tell us for sure).
> 
> Cheers,
> Nick.
> 
> --
> Nick Coghlan   |   ncoghlan at gmail.com   |   Brisbane, Australia